• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
krsmith17

Pulkkinen claimed by Minnesota Wild

Rate this topic

222 posts in this topic

Should have traded Pulk when Babcock was scratching him. Instead they beat a dead horse and allowed his value to decrease further. Obviously you're not going to get traded after almost two years of being a waste of space. 

And yes I like Holland. But no excuses here. We could have definitely gotten some good return if we had traded him earlier on.

How many people predicted he wouldn't be able to translate his AHL "one trick pony" game into the NHL? A lot. This is definitely not hindsight at all. This was coming and we all knew it was, ESPECIALLY because of the Red Wings defensive coaching system. He was never a good fit for us since day 1. As far as trade value, the difference in  2015 year he was known as the Brett Hull of AHL. This past year, he was known as the 14th forward. The latter doesn't sound very appealing in a trade deal. 

Now Frk is another story, can't really blame Holland for that one. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jedi said:

For those keeping score at home, the Red Wings have lost Landon Ferraro, Martin Frk, Andrej Nestrasil and Teemu Pulkkinen to waivers and have had zero return for them.

Thanks a lot, Holland...

What could we have traded any of those players for?  Pulkinnen may have the highest value, but even so I don't see a big return.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hillbillywingsfan said:

What did he do wrong? How about letting someone like that go for free without even getting a 2nd...3rd of 4 rd out of him thats what. He could of gotten something. Holland is a joke period. He waits around too long to do anything until it's too late. He didn't see this coming? really?

If I were a GM, I might think about trading a 4th for Pulkinnen, but I wouldn't go any higher than that.  Only a fool would trade a 2nd or 3rd for him.  

I'm certainly no Holland lover, but drafting players who amount to nothing is something many teams have.  

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

If I were a GM, I might think about trading a 4th for Pulkinnen, but I wouldn't go any higher than that.  Only a fool would trade a 2nd or 3rd for him.  

I'm certainly no Holland lover, but drafting players who amount to nothing is something many teams have.  

So lets let him go for nothing....That was smart. GMR I remember watching the games with you...You always talked about how you would love to be in the box with Holland. You thought he was the cats meow. =) j/k

Edited by hillbillywingsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, derblaueClaus said:

That's the weird thing. There is something coming up. Trade or from GR.

 

Pretty much everything already said on this issue. That guys like Frk and Pulkinnen end up on waivers shows two things for me. First that Hollands roster management is questionable at the moment. And that our scouting picked the wrong guys from 2010 to 2013 or so. If that is because the players needed for the game have changed, scouting just got worse, bad luck or a combination of all three I don't know. But we didn't get what we needed out of those drafts for sure and that hurts us now.

Disagree with the thinking on this part. Frk and Pulkkinen were a 2nd round player and a 4th rounder respectively. Picks often turn to nothing. Both  had marks against them when drafted - as any player outside the top 10 - you gamble/try to develop those shortcomings out of their game. If scouts are only looking for players with a complete NHL skillset, they won't find many.

3 minutes ago, hillbillywingsfan said:

So lets let him go for nothing....That was smart.

Losing players to waivers is not uncommon, though. Only way you get something for Pulkkinen is as part of a package or back when he was touted at the top scorer in the AHL.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hillbillywingsfan said:

What did he do wrong? How about letting someone like that go for free without even getting a 2nd...3rd of 4 rd out of him thats what. He could of gotten something. Holland is a joke period. He waits around too long to do anything until it's too late. He didn't see this coming? really?

They aren't worth anything. 

NerveDamage likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me when everyone whined when we traded Jarnkrok, or Janmark. They apparently according to Wing experts on here were going to be top line players.

 

Edit: NerveDamage is lurking :)

Edited by DatsyukianDekes
Ally likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of all the lost players to waivers over the years, Frk would have been the best to keep. They could've easily kept him until they decided to send Mantha down today and kept him to see if he could actually play here. Then waive him later on if not. Now we'll never know, unless he starts doing good in Carolina. 

 

Since this thread is about Pulk, it always sucks to lose someone for free, but it was painfully obvious he was never going to be utilized correctly here. I wish him a great career in Minny. I sure wish we could've gotten at least some future considerations for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Las Vegas expansion draft coming, the value of the prospects who are not NHL ready in 1, max 2 years has probably fallen through the floor. This may be one of the reasons they were waiv ed and not traded

Wingzman91 and skerrydude like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kickazz said:

Should have traded Pulk when Babcock was scratching him. Instead they beat a dead horse and allowed his value to decrease further. Obviously you're not going to get traded after almost two years of being a waste of space. 

And yes I like Holland. But no excuses here. We could have definitely gotten some good return if we had traded him earlier on.

How many people predicted he wouldn't be able to translate his AHL "one trick pony" game into the NHL? A lot. This is definitely not hindsight at all. This was coming and we all knew it was, ESPECIALLY because of the Red Wings defensive coaching system. He was never a good fit for us since day 1. As far as trade value, the difference in  2015 year he was known as the Brett Hull of AHL. This past year, he was known as the 14th forward. The latter doesn't sound very appealing in a trade deal. 

...

Highly unlikely that last year decreased his value at all. Maybe dropped a bit with the off-season surgery, but probably much.

Do you really believe that you know better than NHL GMs? Any negative you saw in Pulk, every scout and GM in the league recognized long before. His trade value was never much. If anything, last year prior to his injury would have increased his value. 

While "waste of space" was a popular opinion here, he was playing and producing decently well prior to the injury. 6g, 11p in 23 games, plus excellent advanced stats. That showed that he could in fact translate his game to the NHL (not at the same level, of course, but no one would have expected that). At worst, I'd think the injury and everything afterward just knocked his value back down to where it was after 2015.

 

1 hour ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

...

Losing players to waivers is not uncommon, though. Only way you get something for Pulkkinen is as part of a package or back when he was touted at the top scorer in the AHL.

Well, losing 4 players in 3 years is probably pretty uncommon. But what that really shows is just how good we are at getting that level of player, which is all the more reason we shouldn't be that concerned. In 5 draft years from 09-13, we've lost 4 prospects to waivers, traded another 3, and may still have another 8-10 NHL players left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew Miller will be in Detroit so long his hair will pull a Benjamin button and start turning black. Long live penalty killers! (Not torn about Pulks, kinda pissed about Frk, laughing at Kenny for not being able to package assets into a defenceman trade.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DatsyukianDekes said:

So basically we lost nothing?

1st time poster, so forgive me if I do this wrong. I have to reply to correct what is being overlooked here.  In those 4 players, we have (2) 2nd rounders, a 3rd rounder, and a 4th rounder. That is hardly "nothing".  I am sure all red wing fans would be happy if we were given (4) draft picks in the 2017 draft in those positions for free, right?  We not only lose those draft picks, but all the time and effort in training/developing them for other teams.  This isn't a no big deal sort of thing.  It's one of the reasons this team is struggling at the moment.  We are giving away roster spots to older and less productive players instead of letting our youth develop into those spots.  Mantha in GR should be enough evidence of this mismanagement.

Wingnut1989 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buppy said:

Well, losing 4 players in 3 years is probably pretty uncommon. But what that really shows is just how good we are at getting that level of player, which is all the more reason we shouldn't be that concerned. In 5 draft years from 09-13, we've lost 4 prospects to waivers, traded another 3, and may still have another 8-10 NHL players left. 

I'm not sure it's all that uncommon. Pens, BJs, Canucks, Ducks, Blackhawks, all lost 2 players like us last year. 

The previous year, Pens lost 3, Blackhawks lost 2, Kings lost 2,

Source: wikipedia waivers list

 Those teams are mostly more competetive, though, so it makes sense for them more than it does for a team rebuilding through the draft

Anyway, I agree with the spirit of what I'd guess you're thinking, which is: we should keep these players and give them a shot over signing vets (Ott, Miller, etc) 

You could read the number of waiver pickups as a credit to our drafting, but I think it's that combined with signing vets that block fringe/lower line players from getting a spot. 

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk
Buppy and kliq like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Detroit # 1 Fan said:

Drew Miller will be in Detroit so long his hair will pull a Benjamin button and start turning black. Long live penalty killers! (Not torn about Pulks, kinda pissed about Frk, laughing at Kenny for not being able to package assets into a defenceman trade.)

Kenny can't hear you.  He's got his Stanley Cup rings plugged into his ears.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Disagree with the thinking on this part. Frk and Pulkkinen were a 2nd round player and a 4th rounder respectively. Picks often turn to nothing. Both  had marks against them when drafted - as any player outside the top 10 - you gamble/try to develop those shortcomings out of their game. If scouts are only looking for players with a complete NHL skillset, they won't find many.

 

Sure. But Holland and the scouting department have to ask themselves if their criteria for picking players was right at that time. I can't answer that, but the decision they made were either due to the wrong criteria at that time or they indeed just didn't pan out as projected. But I wouldn't rule out the former especially if you look at a player like Pulkinnen. Small, highly skilled but can't hold on to the puck. These kind of players worked some time for the Wings but the game has changed over the years and the Wings might have ridden that horse a little bit too long.

But whatever the reason, we can't help the fact that our prospects from that period of time just didn't archived the level we would need and our beloved winged franchise needs to figure out why.

Just to make it clear: I'm not saying "Its all Kennys fault, tank it and fire him !!!!!!!1111111". Hindsight is always 20/20 and Holland has proven in the past that he is one of the best if not the best GM in the NHL.


 

amato likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulkinnen was not redwings material anyway. He wasn't puck management material!! Only had a slapshot and this is not what we need. He was firing shot from everywhere on the ice, forgetting that he was in the NHL and not in EA sports NHL! He wasn't gonna make it anyway. And I agree with the fact that even as a trade bait he was appealing to no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

1st time poster, so forgive me if I do this wrong. I have to reply to correct what is being overlooked here.  In those 4 players, we have (2) 2nd rounders, a 3rd rounder, and a 4th rounder. That is hardly "nothing".  I am sure all red wing fans would be happy if we were given (4) draft picks in the 2017 draft in those positions for free, right?  We not only lose those draft picks, but all the time and effort in training/developing them for other teams.  This isn't a no big deal sort of thing.  It's one of the reasons this team is struggling at the moment.  We are giving away roster spots to older and less productive players instead of letting our youth develop into those spots.  Mantha in GR should be enough evidence of this mismanagement.

Right, and it takes two to make a deal. How do any of us even know if everyone turned Holland down on these guys. There was nothing special about these guys, every other team waives players and they get claimed all the time. This board overrates prospects like crazy.

e_prime and Ally like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, derblaueClaus said:

Sure. But Holland and the scouting department have to ask themselves if their criteria for picking players was right at that time. I can't answer that, but the decision they made were either due to the wrong criteria at that time or they indeed just didn't pan out as projected. But I wouldn't rule out the former especially if you look at a player like Pulkinnen. Small, highly skilled but can't hold on to the puck. These kind of players worked some time for the Wings but the game has changed over the years and the Wings might have ridden that horse a little bit too long.

But whatever the reason, we can't help the fact that our prospects from that period of time just didn't archived the level we would need and our beloved winged franchise needs to figure out why.

Just to make it clear: I'm not saying "Its all Kennys fault, tank it and fire him !!!!!!!1111111". Hindsight is always 20/20 and Holland has proven in the past that he is one of the best if not the best GM in the NHL.

I'm sure they're always reviewing the draft strategy and they did go away from smaller skilled guys in recent drafts recognizing the team's needs.

I would more challenge when you said our scouting staff didn't pick the right guys in the 2010-12 drafts. We have Mrazek and Sheahan on the team from 2010. I don't know anyone could consider that a bad pull. From 2011, we have Jurco, Marchenko, Oulette and Sproul. I think all will develop to greater heights (Though 1 of XO or Sproul will probably, and unfortunately, be waived and Jurco's future is murky). Then we have AA from the 2012. 

As someone commented earlier, teams can really only hope for about 2 keepers in each draft. We got that and some very good guys in the bunch (Mraz+AA). Compare to some other teams. I looked at the Habs and they pulled less NHL players in those years. Only Galchenyck, Beaulieu, Gallagher in those 3 years vs. our 5-7. (Jarnkrok +Janmark makes 7-9, if you want to include players on other teams)

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I'm not sure it's all that uncommon. Pens, BJs, Canucks, Ducks, Blackhawks, all lost 2 players like us last year. 

...

Huh, more common than I'd thought. 57 claims in the last 4 years. I guess I don't pay that much attention, and it's not usually big news, but it seems I only hear of a few each year.

But my point really wasn't about whether or not we should have kept them or anything. Just saying simply that we've lost guys because we've had a lot of NHL-level players. More of a good thing than bad.

41 minutes ago, derblaueClaus said:

...But whatever the reason, we can't help the fact that our prospects from that period of time just didn't archived the level we would need and our beloved winged franchise needs to figure out why....

 Nothing wrong with our drafting. In fact, you could say that when some of our "busts" are getting picked up on waivers, it proves just the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the first 15-20 picks, depending on the depth of each draft, the odds of getting a good player drop quickly. Someone over at RWC kept going on about how Sheahan was a bust if he was only a third line center, so I looked and getting a third line center at 21 overall was actually pretty decent. After the mid point of the second riund, you have about a 10-12% chance of getting an NHL player, and that includes guys like Miller, much less a 20-25 goal scorer or a top 4 D. In other words, the Wings not getting good players in round a 2-4 is pretty typical league wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0